Supreme court ruling means single sex provision should be ‘on the basis of biological sex’, says minister – UK politics live
Bridget Phillipson, minister for women and equalities, tells Today programme that trans women should use men’s toilets while firms should consider having unisex optionsGood morning. The Easter recess is over, parliament is back today, and one consequence is that ministers can no longer avoid awkward questions about the implications of last week’s supreme court ruling saying that, when the Equality Act refers to women, it just means biological women and does not include trans women, even with a gender recognition certificate.Delivering the ruling, Lord Hodge said the decison should not be seen as a “triumph” for one side in the debate about trans rights at the expense of another. That turned out to be wishful thinking, because gender critical ferminists, and their supporters in the media, have been treating this as a decisive victory. For most Labour ministers, the case was an uncomfortable reminder of an issue they would rather not talk about because they have pulled back considerably from the ‘trans women are women’ very pro-trans positions they (and some Conservatives too) were adopting only a few years ago.That should be on the basis of biological sex. That would apply right across the board to all single sex provision.I know that many businesses, large and small, will ensure that they have appropriate provision in place. For example, many businesses have moved towards unisex provision or separate cubicles that can be used by anyone.If someone (whether binary or non-binary) presents as, say, female then they use the female toilet and vice versa. There is no law or policy prohibiting anyone from using whichever toilet matches their gender identity, and a trans* individual cannot be ordered to use a toilet that they feel uncomfortable using. A trans* person does not need to “prove” their right to use the toilet in anyway, including producing a Gender Recognition Certificate. Continue reading...
admin
Bridget Phillipson, minister for women and equalities, tells Today programme that trans women should use men’s toilets while firms should consider having unisex options
Good morning. The Easter recess is over, parliament is back today, and one consequence is that ministers can no longer avoid awkward questions about the implications of last week’s supreme court ruling saying that, when the Equality Act refers to women, it just means biological women and does not include trans women, even with a gender recognition certificate.
Delivering the ruling, Lord Hodge said the decison should not be seen as a “triumph” for one side in the debate about trans rights at the expense of another. That turned out to be wishful thinking, because gender critical ferminists, and their supporters in the media, have been treating this as a decisive victory. For most Labour ministers, the case was an uncomfortable reminder of an issue they would rather not talk about because they have pulled back considerably from the ‘trans women are women’ very pro-trans positions they (and some Conservatives too) were adopting only a few years ago.
That should be on the basis of biological sex. That would apply right across the board to all single sex provision.
I know that many businesses, large and small, will ensure that they have appropriate provision in place. For example, many businesses have moved towards unisex provision or separate cubicles that can be used by anyone.
If someone (whether binary or non-binary) presents as, say, female then they use the female toilet and vice versa. There is no law or policy prohibiting anyone from using whichever toilet matches their gender identity, and a trans* individual cannot be ordered to use a toilet that they feel uncomfortable using. A trans* person does not need to “prove” their right to use the toilet in anyway, including producing a Gender Recognition Certificate. Continue reading...
